saveasteading

No. Not so. Even if there was some implication, no contract has a space to write in the interest per day. 8% per annum maybe. They are playing at being lawyers, thinking this will intimidate you. It is bullying. Again. It looks as if they are used to behaving like this. Clearly the last thing they want to do is return to complete the work. Prepare your mindset for the next stage. They may well now write you a letter by a solicitor, because they generally do the first letter cheap or even free. When you read it, you will see that it is rather generic, because it is simply writing what they are told to write. You just write back, stating what you have said on here already. And that on reflection you paid too much and will seek for redress if this proceeds, plus costs.

Highly specialised physicists make up their own shorthand formulae to avoid repetition. joist depth x frequency of dance steps divided by insulation density (lumps per m3) minus floor nail length to the power of weight of dancer in kg). is designated as ¿. I hope that helps. All that @Icevergesays applies. I once had to design and build a school classroom block where they insisted on woodwork below and maths above in one area and art above maths in another (artists clomp around). The floor structure had everything mentioned. Most memorable was the osb deck with rockwool slab on it then floorboards floating on it. It worked well but was very deep and very expensive. The cushioned topping is the crucial thing in resolving the original question.

I wouldn't insulate the floor. The heat loss around even an insulted and 'sealed' garage door is quite high. double glazed windows yes. If the roof is in cladding then add translucent sheets for free light and nicer ambience. heating by infra-red directed at the working areas. Perhaps one on a rig to move as required. Depending on what you will be doing, put a mat on the floor where you stand. Some of the above might change if you were to be in there for much of every day.

The newly installed stove with direct air works beautifully. Other benefits are that once it is going, it can burn a single log, rather than have to keep stacking more on, so that is more controllable and efficient, The tiny amount of ash confirms burning efficiency too. Anyway this is academic if you want building regulations. If being done under the radar I still recommend direct air. It's a shock that we now have to get a smoke test done at who knows what cost.

From experience of both. Direct air is best. I agree with all the pros. I add that when the wind is gusting we get backdraughts of smoke from the non direct one...horrible. Also when the fire is not lit, I think quite a bit of draught/ heat loss is leaking through the vents. Plus. Is isn't difficult to fit the intake if it is part of newbuild or refit.

It's easier to do as @Russell griffiths suggests. Concrete to a flat surface then drill and use epoxy and stud bolts. But ask your SE: there are complex loads on a goal post. It's worth painting the lower levels of the steel, using specialist paint or bitumen. Any steel encased in concrete won't need paint.

A double stud wall is my favourite too. This will be more stable and good for sound reduction. It should not need plywood. This will all be published in the manufacturers catalogues. Knauff etc, fire, sound, stability. But it sounds as if this is yourself and bco as designers, so I think I will leave you to it from now.

Hurrah, the Steading is approved by the BCO except he wants a smoke spill test for the Wood Burning Stove. We forgot this was a thing, and he didn't mention it before. Now I read about it , it is a 15 minute test with a joss stick and the extract fan in the kitchen running. I have read the discussion on here from around 4 years ago, and it seems that demands varied by region. Any updates from recent installations? Inverness region. Do we really need a fire qualified person to do this? Can we do it and send the bco a recording? Can I do it as a Chartered Civil Engineer, (different surname to the applicants)? We have an ethical code on not cheating, unlike many institutions. They accepted my drainage design, but that is my subject. But 'is there a draught coming out of the stove door' isn't exactly a complex assessment.

The load spreads with depth. With an eps raft, the wall loads have already been spread a long way so as not to squash the eps. almost any natural ground will be as strong as that.

agreed. I'm just meaning that the reality might be different from the lab figures if it is allowed to sag. If built tight then no difference.

Meaning, it stays in place even if one side of it collapses in fire. It can be in stud as long as it isn't going to be dragged down by a collapsing floor. That is doable in stud.

"A couple who bought a £32.5m mansion can hand it back and have most of their money returned after they found out it had a "severe moth infestation", a High Court judge has ruled" or moth wool mansion. For the whole story I suggest cut and paste some of that quotation. In brief. The seller knew about the moths and did not declare it. He might have spent a lot of the money already.

I'm not a legal either. But I've done courses and sadly been through adjudications etc claiming or resisting payment.. Never got to court but once was settled literally on the courthouse steps. The big contractor pushed their trumpian non-payment that far.

Don't get hung up on the formality. You are not expected to know these formalities of the industry. You simply have to state your reasons and make a "reasonable" payment. But the formal notice might shake your builder. BTW I don't feel that he will ever be back, and a formal pay less notice will increase that likelihood. So you will need a new plumber who might be nervous or opportunist: either of these will add to the cost. And you won't get a discount for the kitchen door. My main concern is that the door is a different shade, as it will be a different batch. Do not hold back too little but be fair at the same time. If you want to draft it here for comment please do. Or send it privately if you don't want it in the public domain. No names or locations for us of course.

I was an estimator for years. As a contractor you have to get it dead right or you lose the job or lose money. Waste is not acceptable.OR accept iinevitable table and allow for it. A bill of quantities by another party is a start but can be too generic....or have errors. In it's simplest terms a builder looks at the work and either 'feels' how long a job will take, or calculates by other means, or a combination. Some aspects are well documented. How many bricks per m2? How much sand and cement, and so on. It is all highly skilled. Sometimes it is a gamble. Waste is discussed above. A bricklayer supplying the materials will have negligible waste. Free supply and they won't use a bent one, pick up a dropped one or save half bricks for the next use.....and then they fill the skip. It's a huge subject so needs to be more specific if there remain questions.

It's too complex to give a quick answer. I did a fire course, and used to submit innovative design solutions but bco's tend not to accept them any longer. So it has to be a standard detail or by a Fire Engineer. Your supplier should tell you this.

My take on this is that first time builders cannot possibly know all there is to know about every option, and their own site specifics. The attraction of a kit is certainty. Would another method be better technically, aesthetically or financially? The kit suppliers can't advise. As a professional(design snd construction) I have never used an insulated raft, but private houses aren't my thing. I have never used eps kits either as the headline costs were good but not the final cost. Those eps of raft projects I have looked at have small rooms, or lots of hidden extras in steels and foundations and elsewhere. I'm sure it can be a good choice in the right circumstances of site conditions and standard layouts, and ease of project management......perhaps at a cost.

Don't 'suggest' or barter. Pay them what you think is fair and leaves you enough to complete the work. This can be a little high to allow for unknowns. Eg what if the door is discontinued? Change them all? Put it all in writing. Not as a take it or leave it offer, but actually pay. I am paying the sum of £x, withholding y for the door and z for the plumbing and zz as a contingency*. The retention will be released within a week of your completing the work. Any legal attempt by them would then be futile. A lawyer would tell them not to be silly. As long as you are being reasonable, they will not prevail. * slightly concerned as to why they haven't done it. Is there some problem? Is the retention enough to get a new and willing plumber in?

Beware. The roof will need maintenance to remove weeds, litter and dead birds. How will you access it safely? The membrane has to be uv resistant or weed resistant as appropriate. The changeover can be complex. The weight of the junk on the roof is additional to snow loads. The structure needs a lot of beefing up.

For fire this is good advice. For sound, go to the next level, because the tests are done in labs with perfect construction and no flanking effects.

The only difference might be that mineral wool could sag if horizontal in a free space. All the figures that are published are from lab testing and some iteration, and the workmanship will be immaculate. Convection may affect room heat loss because of renewal of heat and higher temperature at the ceiling, but not the actual conductivity of the barrier.

Plastic carcases filled with foam! they fall apart or break! Ditto anything just plastic. I will always get a solid concrete / epoxy one Also, think ahead to where the outlet had best be. The drain has to get past joists/ through walls etc. Left, right or centre outlet to the short end or the long?

Thanks @torre. I will have a read of the official government paper on this if readily findable. But I've seen this recently, ore than once definitely not happening quickly due to alleged loss of facility... they had to prove it was non viable.

You can see here at the window reveal, the stone as was and the amount of inner lining. there is clear air and dpm between the two elements. That loss of room width bothered us at first but there was no option really, and it's fine. There is heat loss through the stone of course but it is art and heritage in place of ultimate insulation and the BCO agreed it was a good thing. The rest of the house is fully insulated. The Scottish reg's allow pragmatism in conversions. Another factor is that, if you built a structural wall supporting the floor above, then it would need a footing.

Yes. the wall has stood there for hundreds of years, so keep it and use it. Our steading has 3 skinned granite walls. we kept the roof so that is a difference of course. then inside there is a timber stud construction for insulation and decoration and airtightness. Thus you are looking at a stud construction, not structural. It works a treat. Normal joinery. perhaps copying what is there, or otherwise, but local joiners can do it. For completeness, We had, and have, 4 sides and a central courtyard, with 3 retained sides, as described, but the 4th side had to be removed and rebuilt as if a new house. That was stick built.